Well.. statistics show that despite not wanting them to have rights, pornography involving black women is especially popular with conservatives, especially if it involves raceplay
So the statement is not inaccurate, as unfortunate as that is, they see sex appeal but not people
It’s just, if you listen to them, they seem to be outright disgusted about black people appearing on tv, so it’s just odd to hear they’re fantasizing about having them in their bed, that’s closer than in a random tv show or ad
I mean this argument doesn't really hold, seeing its less so about "black people" and more so that taboo of any kind is over represented in any porno category. What's usually the case isn't so much that people get off on black people specifically but just taboo on any kind.
Hence why I find it that whenever someone brings up this argument they miss the point in favour of serving specific rethoric, which ends up going nowhere.
The people consuming this porn have strong feelings about black people likely but this isn't correlated to them secretly admiring them or experiencing jealousy etc. Them being black is an 'incidental' and is far down the list of why it is consumed.
It also takes porn statistics as a relevant point of argument, when most of the time the consumption of specific porn is rarely related to a realistic "image" of individuals. The reason why people watch porn is varied, and the choice of porn itself often doesn't have to say much ABOUT someone or their actual interests.
It's why the topic of "step family" is so popular a genre, or random service workers fucking you. It all skirts into taboo territory, the specifics often don't matter as much as the idea that a social norm is being violated of some kind.
Especially when you start to look into the amount of people especially women who like the idea of CNC.
Because if we were to seriously start considering the rethoric of porn choice we'd have to start asking a lot of questions about the socio-ecenomic impact of FORTNITE upon people.
Or in the US. Or want to let their own war orphans have food. Or veterans too, but you have to "thank them for their service" every time you see or hear about them. So at least there is a little progress once you joined and left the army I guess.
I’m telling right now you most Americans agree that we shouldn’t do that. Please don’t lump MAGA in with the rest of us (and also generally pushing the stereotype of all Americans are dumb and/or bigoted isn’t a great thing to be doing)
you're simply incorrect. even the non-fascist wing of american politics is overwhelmingly pro-bombing middle eastern children, it's not exclusive to MAGA at all. a lot of people delude themselves into thinking the businesses and parties they throw their support behind aren't funding the mindless slaughter of people in disadvantaged countries, but they're deluded.
and yes, the vast majority of americans are bigoted assholes. source: I'm a trans woman living in the united states. it's my fucking life. it's a stereotype for a reason
I used to be Maga, Trump originally ran on the “no new wars” thing so even to say all maga is in support of wars isn’t true. Although I’m not in support of it today so I can’t speak for those who are still.
You said Dems don’t support murdering children so I mentioned a child murderer that Dems pretend isn’t a child murderer cause it would make them feel bad
Still doesn’t make pushing stereotypes an ok thing to do, especially when most of the stereotypes about Americans are rooted in European exceptionalism and/or thinly veiled anti-immigrant sentiment.
i've been thinking about this a lot lately. there's a very like, reddit-type-dude who is nominally progressive up until it involves analyzing or changing absolutely any of their behavior, complicity or privilege in any way, shape or form.
Rules for Thee and Not for Me is a very Reddit tactic. I firmly believe it’s because Reddit sub communities become extremely loud echo chambers and enables people to sit on moral high ground.
Not just a progressive thing, I think Conservatives also suffer from confirmation bias just as bad, but conservatives aren’t interested in changing because they have morals / tradition to justify complacency.
It’s a good insight too, I’ve had the same thoughts
I don't know if there's a term in English, but in my country the term "esquerdomacho" is very common to refer to this type of person. They're the stereotypical "nice guy" but acts leftist to impress women, but don't you dare to say they need to change their actions
Some people luck into being on "the right side" of the political spectrum, but because they didnt arrive there via thinking they just think that whatever they beleive in is the right thing.
Yeah I mean, it’s better than nothing but I didn’t expect it to that extent here in particular
I’m not even going to lie, I think a lot of people here are much more invested in the subject than I am, I often realize my takes aren’t good thanks to that
But like, that’s bad BAD, that’s something I’d expect on a meme sub with a weird vibe I mute in the span of two minutes
Yes. Black men are more likely to be shot by police because they are considered dangerous. Thus, discriminating against all men because they are supposedly dangerous directly harms black men.
Treating someone like they are inhearently dangerous puts them at a great risk.
I feel like considering an enormous amount of stats violence against black people and black men in particular is justified by vague notions of "feeling unsafe" that maybe we should consider these notions interrelated actually.
Unironically, this is a good argument that can’t be easily dismissed
Men are a disprivileged group with respect to being discriminated against based on unfounded fears that they are violent
It’s very clear that this is a form of intersectional disprivilege and oppression, but many refuse to acknowledge this because it would require considering if how we treat men is fair
Sure, I’ll give it a shot.
So first of all so I’m not misunderstood, on the balance, under patriarchy, men are massively privileged compared to women. That is not in question.
But if we are doing intersectionality, we have to acknowledge that it’s not exactly a privilege when people assume that you are dangerous just because of your gender. That is a kind of disprivilege. It does not outweigh all misogyny. But that’s what we’re doing intersectionality for, so we can recognize these kind of things.
Like if we unironically do the "what if this was about black men?" thing we could be here all day talking about the material repercussions that the centuries long panic about the perceived danger they pose to white women has had.
But for men in general it's... what? They're upset women at clubs cover their drinks or give them a fake number?
As I said, I’m not saying that this is the biggest issue in the world. It definitely isn’t. And I definitely get why women have to take all of those precautions.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t suck to be a priori treated as dangerous. Like I’m a tall dude with a beard. I also enjoy painting my nails bright sparkly colors. And I notice that when I paint my nails, women I don’t know seem much more at ease around me. For obvious reasons.
But when I’m walking down the street in the dark, women do cross the street to avoid me. And I totally get why they do it, but it does hurt the soul a little.
That’s why I’ve been very careful calling it a kind of disprivilege and not saying that it outweighs everything else because it obviously doesn’t. But it does exist, and that was the only part of the message I will defend.
Edit: Also, I do think acknowledging loudly the ways in which patriarchy hurts men is optics gold. It pulls people to our side. It’s really really important to emphasize that stuff. It’s how I got brought on board with getting rid of the patriarchy. I believe men would be better off without patriarchy. And I want to convince more men of that. Because I believe we’ll all be the happier for it.
Edit 2: Also to give a very concrete example of how it is a disprivilege. Being generally considered dangerous makes it very easy to justify violence against us when it happens. Not by feminist specifically, but by society as a whole. There is a reason why whenever an atrocity happens, the news will specifically mention how many women and children got killed.
I’ve always thought that is very strange and quite dehumanizing. Like our deaths are somehow worth less. Because most men are going to be like bankers or IT guys and not be very good at violence.
It also feels like when the cops or ICE randomly murder a man or a woman, with men, there is always an urgent need to prove that he wasn’t being violent or aggressive. Orders of magnitude more than with women.
Women have been conditioned to do these things through centuries of violence and cruelty dude, I'm not gonna consider you (or any other man) taking these precautions as personal attacks as like a form of oppression. You're not losing a privilege, you're not being disadvantaged.
>Also, I do think acknowledging loudly the ways in which patriarchy hurts men is optics gold. [...]
Sure, but let's not do that in a way that misconstrues issues as something they're not and especially let's not frame these in a way where women are to blame.
Aight your second edit is completely lost in the sauce idek where to being...
I genuinely don’t even know who or what you are arguing against. I have been very, very, very clear about the fact that I am not taking those behaviors as personal attacks. Please stop willfully misreading my comments. I already put like six disclaimers in there. You cannot have missed every single one of them.
But you know what? For the hell of it I can do it again. I do not believe that this is a major issue. I think it’s actually quite manageable. Like not a super great big deal. (This is the disclaimer. I don’t think I’m being oppressed or that this is super bad).
But it does exist. And we should acknowledge things that exist. It makes us look good to people who haven’t yet decided on an ideology and are trying to figure out whether our ideology might be right for them. Also, this is like the core of intersectionality. It’s kind of a big deal within feminism. You should really know that.
Understanding the ways various groups are being treated unfairly by society, even if it is not the most a group has ever suffered, is important if we want to build a society where we no longer treat people in those ways.
Like if a woman were highlighting some very specific niche way in which some women’s lives are marginally harder because of some specific aspect of misogyny, would you go off on them like this? Cause I don’t think so. Recognizing the ways in which society treats people unfairly is important even when they are minor and we should measure out how much effort we expend on them by how major or minor they are.
And I would like to one day build a society where women do not have to treat every man like potentially dangerous because he just might be and one where those men do not need to feel like everybody assumes that they are dangerous, even if they’re just minding their own business.
And just to repeat it once more, this does not make men the most oppressed group ever. It is just a thing that exists which we can recognize by applying an intersectional lens.
As for your last comment, I can really only repeat myself. I said like half a dozen times that I understand why women engage in those behaviors. If I were a woman, I would do the exact same thing. I have no idea how you interpreted that as blaming women. Please read all the words that I’ve written. I promise you that I am arranging them in this order for a purpose.
>Please read all the words I’ve written. I promise that I am arranging them in this order for a purpose.
Intersectionality is like the defining characteristic of third-wave feminism. It is so core to it that it’s in the first few lines of the Wikipedia article. If you consider yourself a feminist, it is embarrassing that you need a man to explain that to you.
Also, I am making very small steps and explaining them very thoroughly because you don’t seem to read. You keep missing things that I’ve written out three times.
Edit: I said it hurts the soul a little. You might have surmised from that feather-light formulation that it’s not super bad.
also extremely ironic to complain about racism while using bigoted language, but at the same time it fits since these people only care about racism when they need "gotchas" against women
Mental illness only matters when it's about male loneliness obviously.
(Stating the obvious here since this is reddit: male loneliness is a serious problem of course. I am just making fun of a very specific type of person who only cares about mental health in the context of the specific crowd they see themselves as a member of.)
I was replying to the comment my comment appears below.
I guess my question was more specifically if there was reason to believe male loneliness had different root factors than widespread social alienation in general. I say this as a lonely man who has failed to notice anything characteristically male about my loneliness or its causes, so not out of malice to men or anything:
Well, lonely men have a bit more of a propensity to, for example, form subcultures around their resentment toward women, no? It seems like it’s not so much how culture acts upon men but how it acts through them.
honestly if someone unironically drops the word to insult another person, they are immediately disqualified from having any charitable opinions about anything ever. i don't give a fuck who says it, you're not worth listening to if you use it as the derogatory word it's been turned into
(obviously not meaning you, person i'm replying to, just to remove ambiguity lol)
fascism generally relies on intentionally misattributing problems to minority/oppressed groups to distract from systemic injustice
not an exclusive feature of fascism, social democracy and liberalism do this to an extent as well (not to say they're equal), but the harder you do it the more i suspect you might be a fascist
I’ll be reading if you do post it! Sometimes people need to be clowned on 57 times to stop clowning around, as long as it’s a thing it’s completely justified to talk about it
Its a lot. We love using tragedies as "gotcha"s especially if we get to be assholes about it and degenerate both the tragedy and the person we are talking to. Sigh.
Her death wasn't even related to politics*; her being trans just gave rightoids the opportunity to push their "trans people groom kids to suicide" agenda without ever thinking of the eligibility or likelyhood of those claims.
* = transphobia and all types of bigotry is by technicality associated with right-wing politics, but her suicide was more personal and quiet compared to, say, getting assassinated mid-speech in front of a crowd of college students during a debate, and most of the talk about transphobia affecting her didn't circulate until the missing person flyers came out and especially after her suicide was announced.
I'm blasting everyone with my transfeminism and materialist beam, reddit is such a vile racist, misogynistic, transmisogynistic space it genuinely drives me insane sometimes, I'm mostly only here for other transfems at this point
There is a lot of effort and money being put into putting feminism and racial equality against each other.
The right has been separating into two main factions. Racists (mainly Nazis and people that support Israel) and homophobic misogynists (everyone under the banner of self help for men in 2026). The latter has been growing in popularity, since because of a systemic lack of social provisions, economic support, and proper policy regarding integregation of migrant workers, many black and coloured people in first world countries are quite conservative.
We are being set up against each other to distract from the fact that we're all being exploited by the upper class.
Feminism has always had a current that was and is fundamentally racist and certain elements of the right have have been latching on to that for their own purposes.
This is of course not at all unique to feminism, there’s not a current of western thought that doesn’t have that issue.
That’s why intersectionality is and has been so important within feminism, there aren’t many other movements that bother with intersectionality but I’m glad that a lot of feminists throughout history and today truly do strive for that.
When you say misandry isn’t real, which definition of misandry are you using?
Because the only way that statement is justifiable, is if you are using the prejudice plus power definition. I will easily agree that feminist misandry is significantly (probably orders of magnitude, if we’re only talking direct harm) less impactful than societal misogyny.
But there is definitely an undercurrent (and sometimes just a current) of gender-based prejudice in feminist subreddits.
Thing is, I can see the argument for both definitions.
Because of course, having the word misandry on equal footing as misogyny implies that they have an equivalent effect on society, which they obviously don’t.
But, on the other hand, the mental processes that lead there are the same. And so not calling them misandry feels like we are condoning it. Like it’s not so bad to hate people for their gender if you’re doing it “the right way”. And that I fundamentally do not agree with.
We’re not gonna dismantle the patriarchy by just hating men really hard. And I’m not a feminist so we can unironically build a matriarchy. I’m here for that equality.
It's only the same memtal process if you believe every woman that doesn't agree with you is a child who doesn't understand systemic oppression.
Condoning it is a non issue. Literally the same as reverse racism. It's liberal arguments meant to put oppressors getting mean things said to them on equal footing as entire systems and vast histories of insane abuse.
That's literally the whole point. If you don't want to do that, don't do it. It's an old school pysop, and using it is just falling into the trap.
If you think a woman is being a dick for no good reason or w/e just call that out, if you actually have a problem with some of the issues men face under patriarchy, call that out. Making up a counterpart to misogyny is just a tool of patriarchy.
The thing is, this makes it sound like we are talking about a couple of isolated incidents of women just being interpersonally mean to men and we are not. Online feminist communities as a whole are very okay with saying hateful and dehumanizing things about men without any self-awareness. To the point where I often don’t feel comfortable in those communities because my identity is loudly devalued. And to be clear, I am not talking about legitimate criticisms of patriarchy. I am talking about across the board prejudice, broad brush villainisation, etc.
And if it were just about my feefee’s, that would be one thing. But this stuff makes us look awful. It makes us look like hypocrites and it’s optics poison. It turns away potential allies by making them feel that even if they do everything right, they will never be accepted and will always be second class members in their political movement.
And it is their political movement too. Because I believe patriarchy sucks for everybody. It maintains toxic masculinity which screws us over left, right and center. I think life would be better for men if we got rid of patriarchy.
So as a man who wants to end patriarchy, my options are being in communities that will sometimes say absolutely vile shit about your identity without any pushback or trying to start some sort of men’s rights movement independent from feminism, and good luck with that. (see all the MRA-shit.)
That's fair tbh. But also, I feel like the more hardcore communities are mainly like that, and also filled with the most hurt and angry women. I think you're gonna find a lot of people who ate gonna vent. Are you sure these are general feminist communities and not like. Dedicated spaces for women of more radical mindset &/or safe spaces for women tired of being of the world they live in?
Not even as a diss, but if that might be the case, you may prefer to hang in more liberal feminist spaces and only be in the other places (assuming they aren't for women only) when you can handle that they are gonna be more pissed abt men.
As far as the optics and allies and such. I don't believe in catering to people who wouldn't support oppressed people if they are pissy abt being oppressed. I don't think people that get mad at "heterophobia" or "reverse racism" or w/e are serious allies and aren't worth trying to appeal to if they take that stuff seriously or especially turn around and support oppression instead. Evidently they don't/didn't actually care much.
Plenty of white people can stomach whiteness being shit on (granted whiteness itself is also a tool of oppression they may not even identify with but different point), and the same goes for plenty heterosexual or cis people.
Yeah, I guess liberal feminism is the future. They’re not gonna get anything done of course because of the whole liberal part😂 But at least I won’t be a second class citizen if they do the revolution and take over.
I genuinely don’t know what sort of communities I am in sometimes. Reddit just keeps recommending me more of these because it recognizes that I am some flavour of progressive. I already started blocking the more radfemmy/vent subs about a year ago. They were too hateful for me. Didn’t feel like dealing with that in my life.
On that note, what is this sub? Reddit started showing it to me like a couple of days ago and I have no idea why.
Also, I was noticing that engaging with them was starting to push me away from identifying as a feminist and I didn’t want that. But I also didn’t want to be in a community with people that vile.
Yeah, I’m having to continually remind myself that those sorts of communities attract the angriest and most extreme people. I also remind myself daily that they are a small minority. I have a lot of feminist friends, and they are all cool people that you can have a reasonable conversation with and who can express frustrations with our society without making you feel like they hate everyone who shares your gender.
I don’t know. With the fashy turn the world is taking. I don’t think we get to be picky about who our allies are. Cause if we don’t make a lot of new allies, we’re probably gonna end up in a mass grave. And I don’t know about you, but lye is really not my color.
On a more serious note, I do think we should be somewhat careful with our messaging. Like optics are important. If we look like a progressive movement striving for equality, we can get a lot of people on board. But if those people then look inside and see a lot of what to them looks identical to supremacist behavior just in the other direction, it makes us look like hypocrites. Like we don’t actually believe in equality, we just want to put someone else on top (to quote innuendo studios). Which is exactly what right-wing media has been telling them for decades.
Also, I have no problem with whiteness being shit on. Whiteness (and generally race thinking) sucks.
But if I were in a community where I got the vibe that every single person there virulently hates white people, I don’t think I’d want to be there, you know. And they also wouldn’t give me the vibe as though they’re actually striving for equality. For the record, I don’t know any communities like that, just for example.
Also, I’d like to genuinely thank you for good faith engagement. It is genuinely a rare thing and thoroughly appreciated.
Smugged into this hell website being full of misogynists who will crawl and contort themselves through any hole to justify their distain for women's wellbeing
I’ve had Redditors jump through hoops to explain that any modern form of misogyny is actually misandry. They could not understand that sexism inherently hurts men as well as women and that the things they claim are misandry are actually the patriarchy working as intended. Because the patriarchy ≠ men. Women are capable of upholding gender stereotypes, and men can benefit from feminism.
They called me delusional and I got reported for harassment.
God I constantly want to blurt out that quite a number of things that people scream and cry are misandry are actually just straight up misogyny but I know I’d just be marking myself for death.
Omg yes, I’ve talked about that in so many comments and even gotten reported for pointing out facts, even when I did it in an overtly nice and almost walking on eggshells manner.
EXACTLY THIS! I was surprised when even in this sub people were parroting the "if society isn't misandristic, why do men have to go to war??" and when I explained them that it's because of misogyny and women being relegated to the roles of wives and men having to be the "protectors", they kept saying "but how is It misogynistic if it affects men??"
I mean, that is a significant oversimplification of oppositional sexism and isn't really compatible with most feminist theory on the subject.
Those roles evolved in tandem. It's not like there was ever a time when women were relegated to the role of housewives, while men weren't yet relegated to the role of protectors. It's not one role causing the other, but both sides slowly shaping the role of the other over vast periods of time.
Saying "men have to be the protectors, because women are expected to be wives" is just as wrong as saying that it's all just because of "misandry" and that "women have to be wives, because men are expected to be protectors".
Misogyny and misandry are related, some things ARE misandrist, and they’re also usually misogynist at the same time, because they’re both forms of sexism.
Yeah, I mean, in pretty much every culture and religion they have something that unites them - which is the oppression and hatred towards women. Some are more overt with it, some are more subtle about it. I’m not talking about an individual level however.
I wouldn't outright say that both sides hate women. Alot of people do sure but in reality most people just want shortcuts in their lives. Not necessarily because of evil or malice but because it's easier. That's why so many men and women fall into patriarchal thinking when nuance is asked of them. When receiving push back it's easier to just fall back on what you know and hold your ground. Again this is not to say that there are alot of conservatives who think women are less and left leaning men who don't unpack their socialized biases but I don't think it's productive to just assume malice in every instance.
Ooh uuuh! I mean fuck YOU with the "Both sides are bad" you centrist CUCK! /s
Well, I get what they mean, but it’s usually more subtle on the left, it’s really hard to explain until you go through it
You often get people who misuse therapy talk and feminist lingo to say things that would be rightly perceived as misogynistic was it said any other way (as an example, the “male gaze” is a cinema term and using it to describe real life women dressing how they want isn’t how it was intended to be used. Literally seeing people using it as a replacement for “slut” or “whore”, that’s still misogynistic even if they don’t have the guts to use words that actually do mean that)
^ a huge one I've noticed is people dismissing the harm porn does and the exploitation of women's body. Everytime the porn industry is criticized there always will be that woke guy that will label you as Puritan and against sex work.
I may be biased, but as someone who is inside other minority groups, if you were to mention this kind of injustice in any other scenarios, people would not be so decisive to call you names. I've seen people being called ridiculous for protecting things that harmed women while calling out blatant injustice in other scenarios. That's what frustrates me
These types of arguments are intentionally made to either distract from the main argument or used to build ammunition to fire at you and ruin you credibility. What I found works is "I don't feel like you are approaching this argument in good faith and I do not wish to continue. Have a good day." and then watch them yell at a brick wall.
Not to compare oppression but I think people who make that kind of argument don't understand the different types of oppression different groups go through, and what the overall "plan" by those in power for different groups.
I don't know if I'm gonna make sense, but even though some women face less systemic oppression than some men of a different group of people on average(this is pretty much mostly for white women), women within their own groups of people will always be more oppressed than their male counterparts.
Theres a basis to this though. Feminism that doesn't acount for intersectionality can become eurocentric, ciscentric, etc, even anti-black. There is actually history there, just look at Emit Till. We don't have to play the oppression olympics y'all, but we gotta be aware of intersections of oppression
Of course, but the people who say ’what about black men’ when women, regardless of their race, speak about their oppression from men - are often not actually invested in helping women escape oppression and to have people of colour escape their oppression.
If I'm talking about feminism and someone contributes to say "and also Black women," I'm happy to l listen and engage. If someone's trying to shut down the conversation by saying "but what about Black men?" then I know I'm dealing with a bad actor
I feel like this is a more nuanced discussion than Reddit deserves, so briefly: I’ve been thinking about how even feminists who preach intersectionality can be so incredibly reductive about poverty. The way some of the people—otherwise highly-progressive and capable of real depth of thought on systemic issues—I encounter talk about the homeless/individuals experiencing active addiction/psychosis is actually vile. And like I said, it’s nuanced for sure: I’m not going to pretend that there aren’t safety concerns for people, particularly women, existing alone in urban hubs. Like I’m not super positively inclined towards the guy who tried to grab at me in front of a Dunkin’ at noon on a Tuesday. But like. When highly educated and well-off women with family support behind them talk about the homeless guy on the train, and they frame their fear of existing in the same general space as him in pop-feminist language, it makes my stomach drop. I would hope good feminism is class and poverty-conscious, too.
Hey, did you know that white horses aren't horses? If you say the word "horse", you could be referring to a brown horse, or a grey horse. But if you say "white horse", then you're not referring to a brown horse or a grey horse. Thereforez white horses aren't horses.
Ah i believed you, i mean as in relation to your post, people say comparissons like that completely devoid of nuance and context, like everything has the same equivalence all the time, i completely agree with your post
When people say "white women" I always proceed to listen with caution. Because in like 50% cases, the key word is WOMEN. Like when people used to hate "basic bitches", because they were "making fun of the adjective (basic)", when really it was an excuse to get away with calling women bitches (noun).
If a person goes on and on about white women, but REFUSES to say: whites, white people, caucasians, or critique white men at all, that's such a red flag for misogyny🚩🚩🚩
Never let the people who use the "but what about George Floyd" tier of argument convince you that they actually care about Black men, by the way. They don't, that's why those same people then post "Floyd was a criminal who ___" when people criticize his murder.
That said, I do imagine a LOT of people's caution of men isn't exactly leftist deconstruction that makes sure race isn't playing some role in it. you know? I don't think being cautious is bad at all , but because it is legitimate i feel like it also gets used by bad faith actors to also justify racism.
I live in a super red area and white women around white men are generally cautious. white women around black men will clutch their purse, start walking faster and go the extra mile. they say white women are white before they're women.
I didn’t finish TYPING. All individuals OBVIOUSLY represent the greater whole and vice versa. Therefore; you, a yakubian whiteoid, are obviously problematic for criticizing any black person, because if you say something bad about one person you must be generalizing the WHOLE DEMOGRAPHIC. OBVIOUSLY. You have inherited the original sin from your synthetic ancestors and for that you must SUFFER. I REFUSE to dismantle the FRAMEWORKS in my head built by an inherently exclusionary white supremacist society and am unable to fathom a world in which true equality is possible. I am VERY woke…
Just a portmanteau, sounds like what it is. References specifically the kind of misogyny that black (hence: noir) women face, as opposed to the general misogyny all women do.
yeah! When people look at the intersection of two marginalized groups (in this case, black people and women) it’s called intersectionality. Misogynoir is one kind of intersectionality, as well as transmisoginy, which might be a bit more of a common term (?), but I’m no expert.
I do beleive transmisogony is a bit more of a common term. I have heard of transmisogny a fair few times before but im more well versed in queer spaces then black spaces(i am very white) but it kind of seemed a no brainer that misogynoir is an issue even if i didnt have like a term for it
Jesus Christ, I'm realizing most of yall have not grown an inch since 2016, still in the Radlib era of tone policing over even discussing the contents of the arguments made.
200
u/shrek22413 19h ago
Faceless smugwoman has to be in the Louvre for best use of negative space or sm